If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I listened to a podcast where a reporter went to Kentucky to talk to people who had insurance through the ACA but voted for Trump. It was pretty interesting. Part of it is that in Kentucky they didn't market the insurance markets as being Obamacare/ACA. They called it something else. So it's possible that some people didn't realize they were getting insurance through the ACA.

There was even someone whose job it was to sign up people for insurance through Obamacare that voted for Trump.

Some of the reasons given were that they didn't think Trump would actually repeal the ACA. That they'd realize too many people had insurance through it so they wouldn't repeal.

I get not being a 1-issue voter, but it's harder to understand voting for someone who wants to get rid of something that could so directly impact you. Hopefully all these voters can still get insurance with whatever the GOP comes up with.

Analysis from the Brookings Institution says that 15 million people could lose coverage under Speaker Paul Ryan’s American Health Care Act.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has yet to score the Ryan plan, although the Brookings Institution’s report does not bode well for the House leadership’s bill.

The Ryan plan reports, “We conclude that CBO’s analysis will likely estimate that at least 15 million people will lose coverage under the American Health Care Act (AHCA) by the end of the ten-year scoring window. Estimates could be higher, but it’s [sic] is unlikely they will be significantly lower.”

The Kaiser Family Foundation states that the Ryan plan’s tax credits aid wealthier Americans more than lower-income individuals. Older Americans would face comparatively less aid through tax credits than younger counterparts.

American Medical Association CEO James Madara also criticized the Republican leadership’s tax credits, saying, “We believe credits inversely related to income, rather than age as proposed in the committee’s legislation, not only result in greater numbers of people insured but are a more efficient use of tax-payer resources.”

Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) has maintained that tax credits help everyone get covered. He said, “It covers more people, because it applies to those who don’t have a tax liability, and it’s advanceable, so it’s available today.”

Avik Roy, a health expert at Forbes, argued that tax credits in the Ryan plan will “price many poor and vulnerable people out of the health insurance market.”

Michael Cannon, the Cato Institute’s director of health policy studies, believes that the GOP’s Obamacare replacement bill will force the poor to lose their coverage. He lamented, “If the tax credits (read: subsidies) for low-income Americans are less than under Obamacare, many more low-income patients will lose coverage. Premiums will continue to rise. Republicans will take the blame for all of it, because they will have failed to repeal Obamacare, or learn its lessons, when they had the chance.”

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is expected to join the above list on Monday concluding that the Republican plan will have a negative impact on the elderly, the vulerable and the poor.

This article appeared in "Breitbart," on the alt-right, which also questions as to why Trump would place himself on the wrong side of a proposed healthcare system that doesn't benefit the very core constituency that placed him in the White House!

When you have "Breitbart" siding with the Democrats, this plan is in deep trouble!

Not to worry jgarden, you'll still have your socialist medicine under Trump, it might look different, but it'll be huge government bureacracy nonetheless.

Canada with its universal healthcare system has a healthier population, longer average lifespans (3 years) and yet spend far less on medical care as a % of GDP when compared to their America counterparts - and they don't consider themselves "socialists!"

Canada with its universal healthcare system has a healthier population that lives 3 years longer and spend far less on medical care as a % of GDP than their America counterparts - they don't consider themselves "socialists!"

Is that why (prior to socialist Obamacare) Canadians were coming to the United States for major surgeries?

"Their Florida surgeon has seen the number of Canadian patients grow by a staggering 800 per cent in the past decade. Medical tourism has become big business for the sunny southern state, which is poised to spend $5 million next year in bid to lure more people for specialized procedures."http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...357/story.html

A forecast by Deloitte Consulting published in August 2008 projected that medical tourism originating in the US could jump by a factor of ten over the next decade. An estimated 750,000 Americans went abroad for health care in 2007, and the report estimated that 1.5 million would seek health care outside the US in 2008. The growth in medical tourism has the potential to cost US health care providers billions of dollars in lost revenue.

In comparison to US health costs, patients can save 30 to 60% on health costs in Canada.

In addition, many Americans visited Canada to pose as Canadians and fraudulently use Canada's universal health care system. This became a serious issue in the early 1990s due to the high costs it imposed.

"aCultureWarrior" has been reading too much American conservative propaganda - while he cites 1 or 2 cases from Canada, there are millions of Americans without medical insurance with no hope of ever having their medical needs met!

Access to Canadian hospitals is based on medical priority, not the ability to pay and unlike the US, no Canadians are excluded from their healthcare system.

Wealthy Canadians can go to America for MRIs and other procedures - if money is no object!

The question, however, remains as to why those Canadians "with deep pockets," are allowed immediate access into American hospitals - are Americans so healthy that they can't maximize the use of their facilities?

"Their Florida surgeon has seen the number of Canadian patients grow by a staggering 800 per cent in the past decade. Medical tourism has become big business for the sunny southern state, which is poised to spend $5 million next year in bid to lure more people for specialized procedures."http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...357/story.html

Originally Posted by jgarden

"aCultureWarrior" has been reading too much American conservative propaganda - while he cites 1 or 2 cases from Canada,...

I wasn't aware that the Calgary Herald (as in Calgary Canada) is a conservative periodical.

For those that are mathematically challenged:

For every 1 Canadian that the above Florida surgeon saw in 2004, he's seen 800 more in the decade that followed.
So much for socialized medicine being a great thing.

People traveling to Canada for medical reasons are mostly from the United States. Medical care in United States is almost double the cost of what it is in Canada, making Canada an attractive medical tourism destination for Americans.

• Average in-hospital treatment costs are nearly twice as much in the U.S. ($20,673 U.S. vs. $10,373)

• There are 9.9 qualified nurses per 1000 population in Canada as compared to 7.9 nurses per 1000 population in US (so you get a highly personalized care!)

• Overall satisfaction with the surgical experience is similar in both countries (85.3% U.S. and 83.5% Canada).

• The number of acute care hospital beds in Canada is 3.0 per 1000 population as compared to 2.8 in US

• Canadians have lower rates of in-hospital mortality (1.4% Canada vs. 2.2% U.S.).
• Administrative costs consume more of the total cost of treatment in the U.S. (38.2% of total costs in the U.S. vs. 31.7% in Canada).

• In-hospital cost of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in the U.S. is 82.5 % higher in the U.S. than in Canada.

• The mortality rate for end-stage renal disease is 47% higher in the U.S. than in Canada. Adjusted monthly costs of treatment are $503 higher in the U.S.

• Fifty-seven percent (57%) of U.S. patients have reprocessed dialyzers used on them, compared with 0.0% of Canadian patients.

• Compared with the American counterparts, low-income Canadians have a significant survival.

Why would Canadians become medical tourists in America given the same or better medical outcomes in their own country - at a much lower cost?

While "aCultureWarrior" boasts of 800 Canadians receiving healthcare, 1.4 million Americans (10% of the world total) became medical tourists in 2016, going abroad to get a better bang for their healthcare buck!

Why would Canadians become medical tourists in America given the same or better medical outcomes in their own country - at a much lower cost?

Maybe Canada isn't the socialist Utopia that you make it out to be.

While "aCultureWarrior" boasts of 800 Canadians receiving healthcare,

One Florida doctor saw an 800 percent increase of Canadian patients. That's just one example.

1.4 million Americans (10% of the world total) became medical tourists in 2016, going abroad to get a better bang for their healthcare buck!

Why no link to back your claim? Was it after Obamacare? Yes, many Americans do go to foreign countries to get naturopathic medical care that isn't allowed in the US, but that has nothing to do with socialized medicine.

On that note: There are so many great places that have socialized medicine in the world (China, Cuba, North Korea, etc.), why not move there and enjoy the benefits of free! free! free! healthcare and let the free market do it's wonders in the United States?